Working on it as we speak... >-----Original Message----- >From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:16 AM >To: Chuck Ebbert >Cc: Andi Kleen; Styner, Douglas W; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >driver@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update > >On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 12:57 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: >> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:02:40 +0200 >> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > "Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > > >> > > ======oprofile 0.9.3 CPU_CLK_UNHALTED for top 30 functions >> > > Cycles% 2.6.24.2 Cycles% 2.6.30-rc2 >> > > 74.8578 <database> 67.6966 <database> >> > >> > The dip in database cycles is indeed worrying. >> > >> > > 1.0500 qla24xx_start_scsi 1.1724 qla24xx_start_scsi >> > > 0.8089 schedule 1.0578 qla24xx_intr_handler >> > > 0.5864 kmem_cache_alloc 0.8259 __schedule >> > > 0.4989 __blockdev_direct_IO 0.7451 kmem_cache_alloc >> > > 0.4357 __sigsetjmp 0.4872 __blockdev_direct_IO >> > > 0.4152 copy_user_generic_string 0.4390 task_rq_lock >> > > 0.3953 qla24xx_intr_handler 0.4338 __sigsetjmp >> > >> > And also why the qla24xx_intr_handler became ~2.5x as expensive. >> > Cc linux-scsi and qla24xx maintainers. >> > >> >> They are getting 31000 interrupts/sec vs. 22000/sec on older kernels. > >Should be fixed by: > >http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=124093712114937 > >If someone could verify, I'd be grateful. > >Thanks, > >James > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
